SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS AND DEMAND FUTILITY
|
|
- Molly Cook
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 CORPORATE LITIGATION: SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS AND DEMAND FUTILITY JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN * SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP August 13, 2015 A cardinal precept of Delaware law is that directors, rather than shareholders, manage the business and affairs of the corporation. In the context of shareholder requests that the company pursue litigation, the decision whether to pursue litigation on behalf of the company generally resides with the board as an exercise of business judgment. A stockholder lacks standing to bring suit on the company's behalf unless the stockholder (i) has demanded that the directors pursue the corporate claim and the demand is wrongfully refused; or (ii) purports to initiate litigation on behalf of the company and alleges with particularity why presuit demand is excused as futile. Delaware law features two tests to determine the sufficiency of a derivative complaint alleging demand futility. The applicable test depends on the composition of the board at the time of the complaint and whether a specific board decision is challenged. Known as the Rales test, where a putative derivative plaintiff chooses the demand futility path and no specific board decision is challenged, in order to avoid dismissal the shareholder must point to particularized allegations in its complaint raising reasonable doubt that a majority of the board could impartially consider a demand to sue. Last month, Delaware Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard in Teamsters Union 25 Health Services & Insurance Plan v. Baiera held that a decision made by a board committee composed of a minority of the board will not be evaluated as a decision of the full board for demand futility purposes. Consequently, Delaware's Rales test, not the Aronson test applicable to a board decision, applies when evaluating whether it would be futile to make a demand on the board to pursue litigation challenging the committee's decision. 1 Baiera also illustrates that the plaintiff's challenges in establishing demand futility are not lessened merely by challenging a related party transaction with a large equity stakeholder. Delaware's Standards Where a board decision is challenged and the directors who made the decision alleged to have harmed the company are the same as those to whom plaintiffs would make a pre-suit demand, Delaware courts apply the two-pronged test articulated in 1984 by the Delaware Supreme Court in Aronson v. Lewis. Under Aronson, demand is excused only where the complaint alleges particularized facts creating reasonable doubt that (1) the directors are disinterested and independent on the subject or (2) the challenged transaction was otherwise the product of a valid exercise of business judgment. 2 * Joseph M. McLaughlin is a Partner at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. Yafit Cohn, an associate at the firm, assisted in the preparation of this article. PAGE 1
2 Several years after Aronson, the Delaware Supreme Court questioned the utility of the Aronson test in cases "where the board that would be considering the demand did not make a business decision which is being challenged in the derivative suit." 3 According to the court in Rales v. Blasband, such a situation may arise "in three principal scenarios: (1) where a business decision was made by the board of a company, but a majority of the directors making the decision have been replaced; (2) where the subject of the derivative suit is not a business decision of the board; and (3) where the decision being challenged was made by the board of a different corporation." Under the Rales test, a complaint alleging demand futility must plead sufficient particularized facts to create reasonable doubt about the ability of the board that would be addressing the demand (i.e. the board at the time the complaint was filed) to consider the demand impartially. Under either test, the plaintiff "must impugn the ability of at least half of the directors in office when it initiated [the action] to have considered a demand impartially." 4 Both Rales and Aronson require a court to evaluate the sufficiency of a complaint's allegations of alleged directorial bias. Baiera Chancellor Bouchard's decision in Baiera illustrates application of the factors Delaware courts consider in determining whether demand futility was adequately pleaded under these tests. The underlying transaction was a services agreement between Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., an online travel company, and Travelport Limited, a provider of transaction processing services to travel companies. As a related party transaction, Orbitz's charter required approval of the agreement by the Orbitz board's audit committee. The plaintiff, an Orbitz shareholder, alleged that the agreement was unfair to Orbitz because Travelport's significant equity interest in Orbitz allowed it to obtain preferential terms. Plaintiff asserted putative derivative claims for breaches of fiduciary duty against both Travelport, as Orbitz's asserted controlling shareholder, and Orbitz's board of directors. Citing the plaintiff's failure to make pre-suit demand, Orbitz moved to dismiss the derivative claims. As an initial matter, the Chancery Court considered whether demand futility should be assessed under the Aronson or Rales test. Plaintiff argued that even though only a third of the nine-member Orbitz board, the three-member audit committee, was directly involved in approving the Travelport agreement, the remaining directors "would have been involved in" approving the deal, such that Aronson would apply. The court disagreed, finding that in the face of a charter provision requiring audit committee approval, the plaintiff's proposed "inference of full board approval amounts to little more than speculation." 5 The court indicated that, as a related party transaction, the audit committee's charter gave that committee responsibility to review and approve the agreement. The court found an inference of full board participation "particularly inappropriate" in light of the plaintiff's failure pre-suit to employ the statutory right Delaware grants shareholders to inspect corporate books and records. 6 Noting that an examination of the records surrounding the negotiation and approval of the Travelport transaction may have shed light on whether the full board was involved in the transaction's approval, the court declined "to speculate over a factual matter that was well within Plaintiff's control to determine through basic due diligence." Absent evidence that the directors who approved the Travelport deal were the same as those who would have considered demand, the court found the Rales test applicable. PAGE 2
3 Turning to its analysis of demand futility under Rales, under which the complaint needed to plead facts indicating that a majority of the directors "could not have exercised disinterested business judgment in responding to a demand," the court rejected three arguments advanced by the plaintiff as to why demand was futile. Plaintiff first argued that a majority of the nine members of the board were either interested in the transaction or were not independent from Travelport. Given the complaint's concession that four of Orbitz's nine directors were independent, the court needed to determine that only one of the remaining five directors was independent in order to dismiss the plaintiff's argument. The court focused on director Kenneth Esterow, who had spent 16 years as an executive of Travelport (or Travelport's former parent company) before being appointed to the Orbitz board in The complaint alleged that Esterow's "long-term and high-level employment with Travelport" raised a reasonable doubt as to his independence from Travelport. Noting that "[i]n the demand futility context, directors are 'presumed to be independent'" i.e., that their decisions are "'based on the corporate merits of the subject before the board rather than extraneous considerations or influences'" the court held that a former employment relationship that ended almost three years before the action was filed is, by itself, insufficient to question the director's presumptive independence. 7 Chancellor Bouchard continued that even if it assumed that Esterow's directorship were "a 'loyalty appointment' by Travelport, the mere fact that Travelport, an alleged controlling stockholder, 'played some role in the nomination process should not, without additional evidence, automatically foreclose a director's potential independence.'" 8 Moreover, the court disagreed that lack of independence could be derived from a company proxy statement that did not identify a particular director as "independent" under New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) Rules. Under NYSE Rule 303A.02(b)(i), a director is automatically considered non-independent if, within the last three years, that director has been an employee of the "listed company," defined to include a parent entity owning over 50 percent of the company. The court explained, however, that "[u]nlike the NYSE Rules, Delaware law does not contain bright-line tests for determining independence but instead engages in a caseby-case fact specific inquiry based on well-pled factual allegations." Under this regime, the court held, "the peculiarities of the NYSE Rules" regarding director independence "carr[y] little weight" for determining demand futility. The court also rejected the second argument for demand futility that the directors on Orbitz's audit committee approved the agreement in bad faith. The court explained that under Delaware law, bad faith can be demonstrated "by establishing that a director's decision was 'so far beyond the bounds of reasonable judgment that it seems essentially inexplicable on any ground other than bad faith'" a "high pleading standard" to meet. 9 It was not sufficient to allege that the directors acted in bad faith because the agreement's "material terms" "deviate[d] from market standards and are patently unfair to Orbitz yet highly beneficial to Travelport." The complaint did not plead with particularity facts that would allow the court to reasonably infer that the agreement was "so facially unfair as to constitute a lack of good faith" indeed, it did not specify any financial terms of the agreement. Finally, the court considered and rejected the argument that Travelport's role as both a significant shareholder and deal counterparty excused demand. As Chancellor Bouchard reasoned, the "logical extension of this argument is that demand would be excused as a matter of law whenever a transaction between a corporation and its putative controlling stockholder implicates the entire fairness standard." This approach, explained the court, is inconsistent with precedent that "make[s] plain [that] the demand futility test under Delaware law," whether under Aronson or Rales, "focuses exclusively on whether there is a reasonable doubt that the PAGE 3
4 directors could impartially respond to a demand." 10 Thus, the opinion clarifies that even where a controlling shareholder is party to a transaction with the company, so that the entire fairness standard may govern the fiduciary duty claim, the demand futility inquiry retains its "director-based focus." Significance of 'Baiera' Under Delaware law, the determination of director impartiality for demand futility purposes is a director-bydirector inquiry that focuses on the ability of each of the directors constituting a majority of the board to evaluate a demand. Baiera clarifies that "neither the presence of a controlling stockholder nor allegations of self-dealing by a controlling stockholder changes the director-based focus of the demand futility inquiry." Baiera further highlights that because director independence is presumed, putative derivative plaintiffs face a steep burden in seeking to plead non-independence for demand futility purposes. As the court held, a director's former employment relationship with the counterparty to the transaction or the fact that an alleged controlling shareholder may have been involved in the director's nomination are not, in themselves, sufficient to overcome the presumption of independence. In addition, while several pre-baiera cases addressing claims of demand futility accorded some weight, among other factors, to a director's independence under the NYSE Rules, the Baiera decision clarifies that the NYSE Rules on director independence are not determinative of whether directors are capable of considering demand impartially. 11 Notably, while the earlier decisions used the NYSE Rules to support their findings that the directors at issue were independent, the situation addressed by Baiera was the reverse the company's disclosure in that case indicated that the director was not independent under the NYSE Rules. Baiera underscores, therefore, that given the strong presumption of director independence, pleading non-independence will require more than reliance on the NYSE Rules. Endnotes: WL (Del. Ch. July 13, 2015). 2 Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805 (Del. 1984). 3 Rales v. Blasband, 634 A.2d 927, (Del. 1993). 4 Baiera, 2015 WL , at *9. 5 Id. 6 Id. at *10. See 8 Del. C Id. at *11 (quoting Beam v. Stewart, 845 A.2d 1040, 1055 (Del. 2004); Aronson, 473 A.2d at 816). 8 Id. (citations omitted). 9 Id. at *13 (citations omitted). 10 Id. at *17 (referencing Aronson, Beam, and Rule 23.1). 11 See, e.g., In re MFW Shareholders Litig., 67 A.3d 496, 510, 512 (Del. Ch. 2013) (acknowledging that independence under the NYSE Rules is not determinative of independence under Delaware law in certain circumstances, but noting that the NYSE Rules "are a useful source for this court to consider when assessing an argument that a director lacks PAGE 4
5 independence" and discussing the NYSE Rules to bolster its conclusion that a particular director was independent); In re J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Shareholder Litig., 906 A.2d 808, 823 (Del. Ch. 2005) (discussing the NYSE Rules in reaching its conclusion that the director was independent). This article is reprinted with permission from the August 13, 2015 issue of New York Law Journal ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved. PAGE 5
CORPORATE LITIGATION: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF NON-RELIANCE PROVISIONS. Underlying Principles
CORPORATE LITIGATION: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF NON-RELIANCE PROVISIONS JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN AND YAFIT COHN * SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP April 15, 2016 This month we continue our discussion of contractual
More informationJOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN *
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY PRECLUSION IN SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN * SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP OCTOBER 11, 2007 The application of preclusion principles in shareholder
More informationDelaware Supreme Court Rejects Piecemeal Approach to Analyzing Director Independence
Delaware Supreme Court Rejects Piecemeal Approach to Analyzing Director Independence Robert S. Reder* Lauren Messonnier Meyers** Considered together, a director s personal and business relationships with
More informationDelaware Court Denies Motions to Dismiss in Two Shareholder Derivative Actions Challenging Timing of Stock Option Grants
February 2007 Delaware Court Denies Motions to Dismiss in Two Shareholder Derivative Actions Challenging Timing of Stock Option Grants By Kevin C. Logue, Barry G. Sher, Thomas A. Zaccaro and James W. Gilliam
More informationCase 3:06-cv AWT Document 104 Filed 07/28/2008 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 3:06-cv-01320-AWT Document 104 Filed 07/28/2008 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ------------------------------x : IN re NYFIX, Inc. Derivative : Master File No. 3:06cv01320(AWT)
More informationSAGINAW POLICE & FIRE PENSION FUND v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
SAGINAW POLICE & FIRE PENSION FUND v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY SAGINAW POLICE & FIRE PENSION FUND, Plaintiff, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY et al., Defendants. Case No. 5:10-CV-4720. United States District
More informationEFiled: Mar :02PM EDT Transaction ID Case No CC IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
EFiled: Mar 27 2009 7:02PM EDT Transaction ID 24415037 Case No. 4349-CC IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE --------------------------------------------------------------x IN RE THE DOW CHEMICAL
More informationCase 1:11-cv RGA Document 50 Filed 07/01/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 568 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:11-cv-00217-RGA Document 50 Filed 07/01/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 568 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE KENNETH HOCH, : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : BARBARA
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE PADDY WOOD, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. No. 621, 2007 CHARLES C. BAUM, RICHARD O. BERNDT, EDDIE C. BROWN, MICHAEL L. FALCONE, ROBERT S. HILLMAN, MARK K.
More informationTop 10 Delaware Corporate Opinions of 2008
Top 10 Delaware Corporate Opinions of 2008 2008 was marred by economic downturns, financial scandals and collapses, but the influence and importance of Delaware corporate law has remained stable. With
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JOANNA SWOMLEY and LAWRENCE : BROCCHINI, : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : Civil Action : No. -VCL MARTIN SCHLECHT, JOSEPH MARTIN, : KENNETH BRADLEY and SYNQOR
More informationCase 1:14-cv PAC Document 27 Filed 07/23/14 Page 1 of 11 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------X CENTRAL LABORERS PENSION FUND and STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 PENSION FUND, derivatively
More informationWhat is the True Impact of The Dodd-Frank s Say-on-Pay Rule?
What is the True Impact of The Dodd-Frank s Say-on-Pay Rule? Introduction By Richard Moon & Matthew Bahl 1 The Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ( Dodd Frank ) took aim at executive
More informationCase3:09-cv SI Document58 Filed11/12/10 Page1 of 7
Case:0-cv-0-SI Document Filed//0 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 MICHAEL BROWN, v. Plaintiff, FREDERIC H MOLL, et al., Defendants. / No. C 0-0 SI ORDER
More informationSolak v. Fundaro, No /2017, 2018 BL (Sup. Ct. Mar. 19, 2018), Court Opinion SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY
Pagination * BL Majority Opinion > SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY JOHN SOLAK, derivatively on behalf of INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Plaintiff, -against- PAOLO FUNDARO, MARK PRUZANSKI M.D.,
More informationEFiled: Apr :04PM EDT Transaction ID Case No CC IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
EFiled: Apr 14 2011 12:04PM EDT Transaction ID 36965053 Case No. 6287-CC IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CENTRAL LABORERS PENSION FUND, Plaintiff, v. NEWS CORPORATION, Defendant. ) )
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 10/2/14 Certified for Publication 10/27/14 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX DANNY JONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, 2d Civil
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION NATALIE GORDON, Derivatively on Behalf ) of NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) WILLIAM M. GOODYEAR,
More informationCity of Roseville Employees' Retirement Sys. v Dimon 2014 NY Slip Op 33987(U) December 16, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:
City of Roseville Employees' Retirement Sys. v Dimon 2014 NY Slip Op 33987(U) December 16, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 651011/2012 Judge: Melvin L. Schweitzer Cases posted with a
More informationPierre Schroeder, et al. v. Philippe Buhannic, et al., C.A. No JTL, order (Del. Ch. Jan. 10, 2018)
EFiled: Jan 10 2018 08:00A[ Transaction ID 61547771 Case No. 2017-0746-JTL IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE "^^P PIERRE SCHROEDER and PIERO GRANDI, Plaintiffs, PHILIPPE BUHANNIC, PATRICK
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS JOSEPH ROSENQUIST, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant DRYSHIPS, INC., Plaintiff, GEORGE ECONOMOU, GEORGE DEMATHAS, CHRYSSOULA KANDYLIDIS
More informationChancery Court Decisions Limit Access to Corporate Records in Going-Private Transaction and Following Derivative Suit
Chancery Court Decisions Limit Access to Corporate Records in Going-Private Transaction and Following Derivative Suit By David J. Berger & Ignacio E. Salceda David J. Berger and Ignacio E. Salceda are
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN RE SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL ) CORPORATION SHAREHOLDERS ) Consolidated LITIGATION ) C.A. No. 20026 OPINION AND ORDER Submitted:
More informationDELAWARE CORPORATE. Westlaw Journal
Westlaw Journal DELAWARE CORPORATE Litigation News and Analysis Legislation Regulation Expert Commentary VOLUME 28, ISSUE 7 / OCTOBER 14, 2013 WHAT S INSIDE 41391436 GOING-PRIVATE BUYOUT 7 Appeal says
More informationMERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS
Volume 29 Number 12, December 2015 MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS The New Paradigm (Burden) Shift: The Business Judgment Rule After KKR The Delaware Supreme Court recently held that an uncoerced, fully informed
More informationTHE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE INTER-MARKETING GROUP USA, INC., Derivatively on Behalf of PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P., v. Plaintiff, GREGORY L. ARMSTRONG, HARRY N. PEFANIS, AL SWANSON,
More informationRecent Delaware Corporate Governance Decisions. Paul D. Manca, Esquire Hogan & Hartson LLP Washington, DC
APRIL 2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recent Delaware Corporate Governance Decisions Paul D. Manca, Esquire Hogan & Hartson LLP Washington, DC BUSINESS LAW AND GOVERNANCE PRACTICE GROUP In three separate decisions
More informationDelaware Chancery Clarifies Duty Of Disclosure
Page 1 of 12 Portfolio Media. Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Delaware Chancery Clarifies Duty
More informationDANA INCORPORATED COMPENSATION COMMITTEE CHARTER
DANA INCORPORATED COMPENSATION COMMITTEE CHARTER Purposes The Compensation Committee (the Committee ) of the Board of Directors (the Board ) of Dana Incorporated (the Company ) establishes and administers
More informationMOTlONlCASE IS RESPECTFULLY REFERRED TO JUSTICE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S): I 5 0 Q1 Q.. 3 r, 3 ...! ' i z !- 2
MOTlONlCASE IS RESPECTFULLY REFERRED TO JUSTICE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S): W 2 Q1 Q.....! ' C -0 0 3 r, 3 a I 5 0 d U U b.. U i 0 z 0 P!- 2 P SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW Y0RK:COMMERCIAL
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE HAROLD FRECHTER, v. Plaintiff, DAWN M. ZIER, MICHAEL J. HAGAN, PAUL GUYARDO, MICHAEL D. MANGAN, ANDREW M. WEISS, ROBERT F. BERNSTOCK, JAY HERRATTI, BRIAN
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MATTHEW SCIABACUCCHI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Plaintiff, LIBERTY BROADBAND CORPORATION, JOHN MALONE, GREGORY MAFFEI,
More informationDEFENDANTS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF S VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT
EFiled: May 12 2010 3:03PM EDT Transaction ID 31073824 Case No. 5051-CC IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ------------------------------------------------------------x GEORGE GRAYSON, :
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) THIS CAUSE, designated a complex business case by Order of the Chief Justice
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF WAKE DOUGLAS D. WHITNEY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARLES M. WINSTON, EDWIN B. BORDEN, JR., RICHARD L. DAUGHERTY, ROBERT
More informationSHORT FORM ORDER. Present: HON. GEOFFREY J. O CONNELL Justice TRIAL/IAS, PART 10 NASSAU COUNTY. NORMAN KAMINSKY, derivatively on behalf of
SHORT FORM ORDER Present: SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK HON. GEOFFREY J. O CONNELL Justice NORMAN KAMINSKY, derivatively on behalf of AMERICAN BIOGENETIC SCIENCES, INC., TRIAL/IAS, PART 10 NASSAU COUNTY
More informationEmery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, New York (Andrew G. Celli, Jr. of counsel), for appellants.
Lichtenstein v Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 2014 NY Slip Op 06242 Decided on September 18, 2014 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary
More informationCorporate Litigation: Standing to Bring Consumer Data Breach Claims
Corporate Litigation: Standing to Bring Consumer Data Breach Claims Joseph M. McLaughlin * Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP April 14, 2015 Security experts say that there are two types of companies in the
More informationForward Momentum: Trulia Continues to Impact Resolution of Deal Litigation in Delaware and Beyond
Forward Momentum: Trulia Continues to Impact Resolution of Deal Litigation in Delaware and Beyond Contributors Edward B. Micheletti, Partner Jenness E. Parker, Counsel Bonnie W. David, Associate > See
More informationWilmington Update. Delaware Supreme Court and the Court of Chancery Offer Obligation Guidance for Financially Troubled Entities
www.pepperlaw.com Winter 2008 message from partner in charge This issue features recent Delaware corporate decisions that may affect corporate law cases across the county. If the onslaught of litigation
More informationMaster Limited Partnerships Delaware Law Updates
Master Limited Partnerships Delaware Law Updates William M. Lafferty Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP 2013 Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP 7584384 Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP 1 Overview
More informationIn re Oracle Corp. Derivative Litigation: Death of Special Litigation Committees?
DePaul Business and Commercial Law Journal Volume 3 Issue 4 Summer 2005: Symposium - Out with the Old, In with the New? Articles 2 and 2A of the Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 In re Oracle Corp. Derivative
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 3:11-cv-30200-MAP Document 15 Filed 07/25/12 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS FRANK HOLT and ) NORMAN HART, derivatively ) on behalf of SMITH & ) WESSON
More informationNOMINATING AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE CHARTER
NOMINATING AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE CHARTER PURPOSE The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee (the Committee ) of the Board of Directors (the Board ) of Elevate Credit, Inc., a Delaware
More informationIN THE COURTS. Issue Preclusion in Multijurisdictional Shareholder Derivative Litigation. Shareholder Derivative Background Litigation
IN THE COURTS Volume 27 Number 8, August 2013 Issue Preclusion in Multijurisdictional Shareholder Derivative Litigation By Mark A. Perry and Geoffrey C. Weien If one court dismisses a shareholder derivative
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
EFiled: Aug 2 2004 5:28PM EDT Filing ID 3982850 IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY JUDITH JACOBS, derivatively on ) behalf of YAHOO! INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) )
More informationCOURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE WILMINGTON, DELAWARE
ANDRE G. BOUCHARD CHANCELLOR COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734 Date Submitted: September 15,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 13, 2010 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 13, 2010 Session IN RE HEALTHWAYS, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 08-1426-II Carol L. McCoy,
More informationClient Alert. Kathaleen S. McCormick and Nicholas J. Rohrer 1. December 22, 2017
Client Alert The Delaware Supreme Court Eliminates the Defense of Stockholder Ratification to Director Compensation Decisions Made Pursuant to Discretionary Equity Incentive Plans Kathaleen S. McCormick
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CHARLES R. KING, No. 330, 2010 Plaintiff Below, Appellant, Court Below: Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware v. VERIFONE HOLDINGS, INC., C.A. No. 5047
More informationDIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY BANKRUPTCY STAYS OF LITIGATION AGAINST NON-DEBTORS JUNE 12, 2003 JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN S IMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY BANKRUPTCY STAYS OF LITIGATION AGAINST NON-DEBTORS JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP JUNE 12, 2003 Most courts have held the insured versus insured exclusion
More informationSubmitted: April 5, 2005 Decided: May 4, 2005
WILLIAM B. CHANDLER III CHANCELLOR COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE 34 THE CIRCLE GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947 Submitted: April 5, 2005 Decided: May 4, 2005 Jessica
More informationR. R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRINCIPLES OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (amended and restated effective as of April 6, 2017)
R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRINCIPLES OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (amended and restated effective as of April 6, 2017) The Board of Directors derives its authority from the laws of the
More informationLSC COMMUNICATIONS, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRINCIPLES OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (Adopted October 1, 2016)
LSC COMMUNICATIONS, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS PRINCIPLES OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (Adopted October 1, 2016) The Board of Directors derives its authority from the laws of the State of Delaware, the Company
More informationPosted by Jenness E. Parker and Kaitlin E. Maloney, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, on Sunday, May 21, 2017
Posted by Jenness E. Parker and Kaitlin E. Maloney, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, on Sunday, May 21, 2017 Editor s note: Jenness E. Parker is Counsel and Kaitlin E. Maloney is an associate
More informationHARSCO CORPORATION (the Corporation ) NOMINATING AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
HARSCO CORPORATION (the Corporation ) NOMINATING AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS I. PURPOSES CHARTER (As Amended and Restated October 24, 2016) The Nominating and Corporate
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN RE J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO. ) Consolidated SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION ) C.A. No. 531-N MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Submitted:
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM OPINION. Date Submitted: August 2, 2012 Date Decided: January 3, 2013
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE NOVELL, INC. : Consolidated C.A. No. 6032-VCN SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION : MEMORANDUM OPINION Date Submitted: August 2, 2012 Date Decided: January 3,
More informationVIKING THERAPEUTICS, INC. CHARTER OF THE NOMINATING AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PURPOSE VIKING THERAPEUTICS, INC. CHARTER OF THE NOMINATING AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS The purpose of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee (the Committee
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
EFiled: Aug 21 2014 04:23PM EDT Transaction ID 55923268 Case No. 9789-VCL IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE PONTIAC GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, On Behalf of Itself and All Others
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE WALTER E. RYAN, JR., v. Plaintiff, NAREN GURSAHANEY, THOMAS COLLIGAN, TIMOTHY DONAHUE, ROBERT DUTKOWSKY, BRUCE GORDON, BRIDGETTE HELLER, KATHLEEN HYLE,
More informationLIBBEY INC. COMPENSATION COMMITTEE CHARTER
LIBBEY INC. COMPENSATION COMMITTEE CHARTER Purpose The purpose of the Compensation Committee (the Committee ) of the Board of Directors (the Board ) of Libbey Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company
More informationDEFENDANTS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT
EFiled: May 1 2007 6:48PM EDT Transaction ID 14681397 Case No. 2404-VCL IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY PADDY WOOD, v. Plaintiff, CHARLES C. BAUM, RICHARD
More informationTUTOR PERINI CORPORATION CORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES
TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION CORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES The Board of Directors (the Board) of Tutor Perini Corporation (the Company ) has adopted the following Corporate Governance Guidelines to assist
More informationCORPORATE! ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT
BNA INC. A CORPORATE! ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT Reproduced with permission from Corporate Accountability Report, 7 CARE 647, 05/22/2009. Copyright 2009 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372- 1033)
More informationNYSE BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPROVES NEW CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND DISCLOSURE STANDARDS AUGUST 23, 2002 S IMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
NYSE BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPROVES NEW CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND DISCLOSURE STANDARDS SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP AUGUST 23, 2002 On August 16, 2002, the New York Stock Exchange ( NYSE ) publicly filed
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ROBERT C. ANDERSEN, v. Plaintiff, MATTEL, INC., CHRISTOPHER A. SINCLAIR, MICHAEL J. DOLAN, TREVOR EDWARDS, FRANCES D. FERGUSSON, ANN LEWNES, DOMINIC NG,
More informationEFiled: Mar :58PM EDT Transaction ID Case No VCS IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
EFiled: Mar 28 2008 6:58PM EDT Transaction ID 19179069 Case No. 3438-VCS IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CHARLES HOKANSON, ) JOHN HOKANSON, FOYE STANFORD, ) CHARLES SEITZ and ELIZABETH
More informationSUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG 12 CVS 13727
Krieger v. Johnson, 2014 NCBC 13. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG 12 CVS 13727 JOEL KRIEGER, Derivatively on Behalf of ) Nominal Defendant
More informationDelaware Court of Chancery Upholds Merger Agreement Termination Based on Failure to Deliver Formal Notice of Extension
Delaware Court of Chancery Upholds Merger Agreement Termination Based on Failure to Deliver Formal Notice of Extension On March 14, 2019, the Delaware Court of Chancery upheld the disputed termination
More informationNOMINATING COMMITTEE CHARTER PAVMED INC.
NOMINATING COMMITTEE CHARTER OF PAVMED INC. The responsibilities and powers of the Nominating Committee (the Nominating Committee ) of the Board of Directors (the Board ) of PAVmed Inc. (the Company ),
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BURTON R. ABRAMS, ) ) No. 564, 2006 Defendant Below, ) Appellant, ) Court Below: Court of Chancery ) of the State of Delaware in v. ) and for New Castle County
More informationFirst Data Corporation Charter of the Governance, Compensation and Nominations Committee of the Board of Directors
1.0 Purpose First Data Corporation Charter of the Governance, Compensation and Nominations Committee of the Board of Directors The purpose of the Governance, Compensation and Nominations Committee (Committee)
More informationStockholder Inspection Pursuant to Section 220 of the DGCL
Highland Select Equity Master Fund, L.P. c/o Highland Capital Management, L.P. 300 Crescent Court Suite 700 Dallas, Texas 75201 02/28/2019 VIA EMAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY Medley Capital Corporation 280
More informationBulk of Wells Fargo Shareholder Derivative Suit Survives Motions to Dismiss
December 4, 2017 Bulk of Wells Fargo Shareholder Derivative Suit Survives Motions to Dismiss On October 4, 2017, in In re Wells Fargo & Company Shareholder Derivative Litigation, which concerns alleged
More informationNOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION AND SETTLEMENT HEARING
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY IN RE RAYTHEON COMPANY SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION CONSOLIDATED C.A. NO. 19018 NC NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER
More informationCORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES The following principles have been approved by the Board of Directors (the Board ) of BrightSphere Investment Group plc (the Company ) and provide a framework for the corporate
More informationFinal Report: June 8, 2017 Date Submitted: May 31, 2017
MORGAN T. ZURN MASTER IN CHANCERY COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER 500 NORTH KING STREET, SUITE 11400 WILMINGTON, DE 19801-3734 Final Report: Date Submitted:
More informationFTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. COMPENSATION COMMITTEE CHARTER
FTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. COMPENSATION COMMITTEE CHARTER Purpose The Compensation Committee (the Committee ) of the Board of Directors (the Board ) establishes and administers the Company s compensation
More informationCORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES 1. Director Qualifications The Board will have a substantial majority of directors who meet the criteria for independence required by the New York Stock Exchange. The Committee
More informationCHARTER OF THE NOMINATING AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SILVER SPRING NETWORKS, INC.
CHARTER OF THE NOMINATING AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SILVER SPRING NETWORKS, INC. PURPOSE The purpose of the Nominating and Governance Committee (the Committee ) of the Board
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE APPELLANTS OPENING BRIEF
EFiled: Sep 23 2015 10:25AM EDT Filing ID 57907414 Case Number 392,2015 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, PAUL NASH, et al., derivatively on behalf of Nominal
More informationCharter of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of SanDisk Corporation (Adopted March 19, 2015)
Charter of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of () Purposes. The primary purposes of the Compensation Committee (the Committee ) of SanDisk Corporation ( SanDisk ) are to (1) discharge
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
EFiled: Jun 29 2012 10:27AM EDT Transaction ID 45084839 Case No. 6462-VCG IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE FRANK DAVID SEINFELD, v. Plaintiff, DONALD W. SLAGER; JAMES E. O CONNOR; JOHN
More informationCause No. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Nominal Defendant. SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE PETITION FOR BREACHES OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
Cause No. Filed 10 January 8 A11:39 Loren Jackson - District Clerk Harris County ED101J015626245 By: Sharon Carlton ELIEZER LEIDER, derivatively on behalf of THE MERIDIAN RESOURCE CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff,
More information) ) ) ) ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY DERIVATIVE LITIGATION ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 9627-VCG REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS William M. Lafferty (#2755)
More informationKebis v Azzurro Capital Inc NY Slip Op 30171(U) January 21, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /12 Judge: Barbara R.
Kebis v Azzurro Capital Inc. 2014 NY Slip Op 30171(U) January 21, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 650253/12 Judge: Barbara R. Kapnick Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
EFiled: Apr 25 2008 3:53PM EDT Transaction ID 19576469 Case No. 2770-VCL IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE PETER V. YOUNG and ELLEN ROBERTS YOUNG, Plaintiffs, v. C.A. No. 2770-VCL PAUL
More informationCOMPENSATION COMMITTEE CHARTER
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE CHARTER PURPOSE The Compensation Committee (the Committee ) of the Board of Directors (the Board ) of Elevate Credit, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company ), is appointed by
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. Case No: IN RE: MERCK & CO., INC. SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE & ERISA LITIGATION
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Case No: 06-2911 IN RE: MERCK & CO., INC. SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE & ERISA LITIGATION CONSOLIDATED DERIVATIVE ACTION Hawaii Laborers Pension
More informationFAIRFAX FINANCIAL HOLDINGS LIMITED
FAIRFAX FINANCIAL HOLDINGS LIMITED GOVERNANCE AND NOMINATING COMMITTEE CHARTER Approved by the Board of Directors on February 17, 2005 FAIRFAX FINANCIAL HOLDINGS LIMITED GOVERNANCE AND NOMINATING COMMITTEE
More informationCHARTER OF THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF YRC WORLDWIDE INC.
CHARTER OF THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF YRC WORLDWIDE INC. CHARTER OF THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF YRC WORLDWIDE INC. (Effective July 1, 2018) The Board
More informationOn February 5, 2008, Defendants, Gulfport Energy Corporation ("Gulfport"), Mike
EFiled: Apr 25 2008 6:12PM EDT Transaction ID 19580893 Case No. 3128-VCN IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ROBOTTI & COMPANY, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) ) Civil Action No. 3128-VCN GULFPORT
More informationSELECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION NOMINATING AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE CHARTER
SELECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION NOMINATING AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE CHARTER (Reviewed and Reauthorized on 02/14/18) SELECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION NOMINATING AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
More informationDavid Shaev Profit Sharing Plan v Bank of Am. Corp NY Slip Op 33986(U) December 29, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:
David Shaev Profit Sharing Plan v Bank of Am. Corp. 2014 NY Slip Op 33986(U) December 29, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 652580/11 Judge: Melvin L. Schweitzer Cases posted with a "30000"
More informationDELAWARE CORPORATE LAW BULLETIN
DELAWARE CORPORATE LAW BULLETIN Delaware Court Refuses to Dismiss a Material Adverse Effect Claim Brought by an Unhappy Buyer Robert S. Reder* Danielle S. Lee** Chancery Court examines level of competition
More informationINSIGHTS. Guidance on Identifying Officers for Advancement and Indemnification CORPORATE GOVERNANCE. The Corporate & Securities Law Advisor
INSIGHTS The Corporate & Securities Law Advisor VOLUME 30, NUMBER 11, NOVEMBER 2016 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE Guidance on Identifying Officers for Advancement and Indemnification Recent Delaware decisions demonstrate
More informationCase 3:11-cv AC Document 63 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 21 Page ID#: 716
Case 3:11-cv-00633-AC Document 63 Filed 01/25/12 Page 1 of 21 Page ID#: 716 ROBERT J. MCGAUGHEY, OSB #800787 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. MCGAUGHEY 805 SW Broadway, Suite 2440 Portland, Oregon 97205 Telephone:
More informationSouthern Advanced Materials, LLC v Abrams 2019 NY Slip Op 30041(U) January 4, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2015 Judge:
Southern Advanced Materials, LLC v Abrams 2019 NY Slip Op 30041(U) January 4, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 650773/2015 Judge: Saliann Scarpulla Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More informationMEMORANDUM OPINION. Date Submitted: December 10, 2010 Date Decided: March 3, 2010
EFiled: Mar 3 2010 2:33PM EST Transaction ID 29859362 Case No. 3601-VCS IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE EDGEWATER GROWTH CAPITAL ) PARTNERS, L.P. and EDGEWATER ) PRIVATE EQUITY FUND III,
More informationTANGER FACTORY OUTLET CENTERS, INC. AUDIT COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS CHARTER (adopted with amendments through October 28, 2013)
TANGER FACTORY OUTLET CENTERS, INC. AUDIT COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS CHARTER (adopted 2-24-04 with amendments through October 28, 2013) 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of the Audit Committee (the Committee
More information